What is the actual performance on the V10 S6 / S8

A6 All/ S6 All
#29

So your going to have to help me with this. And I seriously mean it.

Here is what I just dont get…

You have several real world S6 V10 times that are 14.0 or slower. One of them was paul who had a fresh carbon clean and a new intake so basically the best shape the car could be. He went 14.0

You then have edmonds that puts out a video of the 2007 S6 in 2007. Edmonds tests the cars acceleration and finds that its 14.0. Edmonds echos that the S6 times are about 1/2 a second slower then reoprted. Once again keep in mind the edmonds test was in 2007 on a brand new S6 V10

So with the 2007 S6 track tested in 2007 and the car was new you really dont get much better then that. It still only went 14.0

so how do you somehow even tho there never has been one case of the S6 even going faster then 13.7 how do you somehow come up with 13.4… Thats not even in the zip code of possible and nothing backs up even the thought that the car is a 13.4 car in even the worlds best stock form.

So honestly why do you keep saying a car that shows and tests at 14.0 is somehow able to go over half a second faster stock. I dont even understand the rational thought behind that.

#30

Its the internet so I want to make it clear my post is not meant to be hostel but I trully dont get where your coming from espically now that the edmonds test was done on a new car and it showed 14.0

#31

If you want to hang your hat on the edmunds test, be careful because someone else might hang their hat on another test that was far faster…

Reality is that if you have a real 1/4 mile run done on a real 1/4 mile track…and not one that has been ‘corrected’ for DA like they do in California…then you’ll have good data.

Until then, you have nothing but shit guesses from magazines who are reviewing the very cars who advertise in their pages.

#32

Don’t want this to turn into a war thread. If you have a perfect car perfect condition perfect da, a mid 13 is doable in the car. Doesn’t really matter, add filters, proper catback and your deep 13 super high 12. Add a tcu and ecu your <12.7-12.8, again were talking perfect conditions etc.

To saki points and even your points Justin, most no one who owned a s6 modded or stock went to the track, and even if you look at published times, they are all over and minimal at best. You also have better example and others worse then others.

Again I hope I’m right , but maybe you all are :slight_smile:

#33

you’re just making shit up

show some results. Much more useful.

certified dragstrip, non-corrected numbers. That’s the whole point of the fucking thread lol. The point is that people (like you) just make shit up as ‘this is what is done’ when reality is that none of it has been done. What has been done is shitty times have been run.

You showed that you’re absolutely fucking CLUELESS when you say 13.5 is standard and that with an air filter (civic much), catback and you’re running high 12. You’re absolutely delusional. This would mean that catback and ‘filter’ would gain you around 50 hp. Hearing you say this shows you’re literally a performance neophyte.

No war needed. You shot yourself in the foot.

#34

My post is about same as yours? In for the results

#35

I’ve also owned the car with proper modifications and have done my homework. Appreciate the kind words as well, hopefully Kurt and team can prove us wrong

#36

Good point. So far the one solid 1/4 mile was the one at milan and it was in the 14s. From there you have paul in Aus and he ran a 14. then you have the edmund so called run and that was 14. I think road and track tested and said they got 13.8 but again thats possible it was corrected. The rest of the so called performance times are just restated and not tested. I can see good DA car going in the 13.8 or even 7. I just think in stock form there is no standing proof that there is even the possibilty in stock form that the car would be capable of a 13.4.

Again this isnt meant to be an argument but just an understanding of where vtgt is coming from. I see 14 seconds as the normal from what we have seen from the few tests that we have. I do see 13.7 possible as the best total real world best conditions possible time. But I dont see the cars going any faster in stock form no matter what the case. Now when you start modding them I think the performance will really wake up but stock I dont think anything much under 13.7 is possible in any condition.

#37

I hear ya Justin we shall see :slight_smile:

#38

When I first started modding my old C5 v8 A6, I remember doing a lot of research, and then coming on here and posting that my goal of a 12 second car should be an easy goal with the mods I had (or so I thought at the time). Looking back now, I see I was kind of clueless. People on here were polite enough though, and didnt rip me completely to shreds :slight_smile:

When I got my v10 S6, it didnt seem super fast. In fact, it didnt seem quite as fast as my modded C5 s6 wagon, at high RPM. It had a nice kick to it for sure, and a wonderful exhaust note with the windows down. Still I though it would be at least a mid 13 car. Then reality set in…

http://ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb11847770/p5pb11847770.jpg

Turns out I had a broken intake manifold, but no codes and no check engine light. So, as far as I could tell, the car was running perfectly fine. And yet, it is a pretty consistent 14.6. Even if the manifold were fixed, it would still be a 14-something car.

It took a few Audi car projects before I started to really see the difference between real world numbers, and those in the magazines, or even worse, those floating around the net with nothing but a butt dyno to back them up.

In the end, I finally came to the conclusion… if there is no timeslip from the run, then it doesnt exist. That doesnt mean it didnt happen… but yeah, it probably never happened.

Why is this even important??? Because it is critically important to the people who devote their time to advance the platform. Out of all the ways to measure and compare the results of different engine/exhaust/ecu modifacations of a car, the track visits are by far, our best option. They are not perfect, as we found out when a previous member (who has been kicked off the forum) started posting fake timeslips from an obviously different car, but they are the best that we have.

For the people who spend way too much money and way too much time, tryiing to advance the platform, the unsubstantiated 1/4 mile times with no timeslips, undermine the measurement tool, and devalue the results of their projects. To the guy making the claim without the slip, it may seem like a minor issue. But to the people on this forum who have gathered here exactly because of all the BS/lies/make-believe on the other forums, it is something that cant be tolerated without comment.

vtgt, you are probably one of the biggest supporters of the Audi v10 platform on here, and that is great. Just understand that real performance improvements on this platform have not come easy at all. And anything that was supposedly done in the past by others, was unsubstantiated and BS (in my opinion).

We are very close to finally seeing what can be done with these cars, but it is critical that we have a realistic baseline to compare that to, and not some make-believe BS.

If there is no timeslip, then it didnt happen. Plain and simple.

#39

What does “DA-corrected like they do in California” mean? I’m in California, does that mean any track times I might get in the future will be considered invalid for some reason?

#40

Wow V8A6 great post. Long time no post good to see you putting some thoughts out there. Very well said.

I know some might see my posts and think why does he care whats the big deal but you just summed it up perfictly.

#41

This is an imporntant question. No if you go run at any real track you will be fine. This is more for the magazines that dont actually take the cars to the track but they set up a road side test. The magazines give performance figures if they even really test the cars at all. The magazine tests are not really accurate and almost all of the time they correct the times they get calling the adjustments DA correction.

So if your in california and its like 85 out the car isnt going to be as fast as it is wihen its 75. Generally when it gets hotter that effects DA there are a lot of things that go into the DA but to make it simple. The magazines post the corrected times for what the car would do in the optiomal conditions and not the conditions the car ran in. Alot of the time you get crap results and the resons why so many magazine times are useless.

Then again some cars are not as effected by weather as others so that just makes things that much harder. In the search for real truth and where our real beginning is you have to take what you really have in hand.

#42

Agreed great post and perspective! Let’s see some slips :wink:

#43

Overall I am excited possibly overexcited for this platform. I knew that the recipe I began to follow 3-4 years ago was the right route and folks like the above are starting to play it through. Back then I knew almost no one who put a proper flowing catback wth at least 2.75 wth he right x pipe and location on these cars. Fabspeed inspired me by their design, it was decent by it was 2.5 inch and tapered in certain places, I spoke with them to understand their design increase d diameter to 2.75 all the way through with no neck downs and took it as far fwd as I could and all the way back to the stock mufflers. Phase two was going to be free flow mufflers and then obviously work the way up to the stock cats. After new IM, carbon clean, this car drove completely different. Heats oak was still there but the first few runs a colder temps and it was a quick car.

Again not super fast, but sig faster than my cayenne GTS which is a 13.8-14.3 car depending on conditions and transmission. On v8a6 note I will say in the upper ranges the cayenne GTS pulls harder, but 4.8 liter and it’s designed to rev and there is very little heat soak and the intake design allows more air in…

Again, time slips as the testament I agree. But I’d like a car built to be fast everywhere not just one qrtr at a time. Although once you have a car that performs better all over you can squeak out some decent runs.

I’m hoping we see some consistent 12 second cars, hell hopefully even close to a average stock c7 s6 with FBO (headers etc) I think may be feasible (might take race gas tho…). I suppose we Stay tuned in here. CV thanks for sparking real interest again :slight_smile:

#44

hey Justin! Yes, long time for sure.

Unfortunately, these days I just dont have the free time that I used to, to be able to contribute to the forum as much. That being said, I try to catch up with some thread binge reading when I have the chance.

#45

If it’s helpful. My car’s JHM tuned track times crushed the stock times, even if you consider the 13.7 the norm and we have yet to even see anyone run a 13.7 all the track tested cars or even tested cars show 14 seconds. So, even if we use the 13.7 times my car JHM tuned crushed those times. It’s not quite where I want the car to be, but I feel that will come soon enough.

We seem to keep supporting the opening statements of this thread. If you have a great running car you’re in the 14-13.7 range. If you have a JHM tuned S6 or S8, well you’re going to be running what these cars should have been running from the factory. I’ll post more on that later in my performance thread.

#46

No, it’s not. Keep digging though.

#47

You’re the one people are waiting to see slips for. You’re the one claiming things like 13.5 is the standard and high 12s is done with just a catback.

You claim you have owned and modified the car thus you know more u guess is the inference but do you really? Where are your slips? Where are the slips for all of these mid to high 12s NA cars you’re dreaming of? Oh that’s right…they don’t exist.

#48

Glad there is another thread on this topic. CV feel free to weed out the comments that are unproductive and unnecessary, that includes mine as well :-).

Please Keep on informing, I’ll continue my positive attitude, albeit optimistic. Cheers.